In your opinion, should federal election laws and policies passed by state legislatures be subject to review by state courts?

👍 Yes (58%) – "The laws that govern this nation were set up as a series of checks and balances. No one party should have the sole authority to determine election laws that may be skewed in their favor. A review by a state court should ensure that election laws remain fair and nonpartisan."

• "If they are changing rules that affect the constituents of the state, it's fair to have a state court review it before it affects them. That way, if it is grossly one-sided or is in some way flawed, issues can be addressed before it goes into effect."
• "This is perhaps the greatest threat to democracy in our time. By preventing oversight by nonpartisan entities such as state courts, the partisan legislative bodies (from either party) could, in theory, throw out all established election rules and invalidate lawfully placed votes by citizens. This is one step away from authoritarianism."

👎 No (25%) – "The Federal government is the highest government in the land. It is not the place of State governments to question orders from the Federal. If each State government were to decide whether or not to follow rulings from the federal government then they might as well be different countries. If the States have free reign it won't be long until they start passing drastically different laws, and they could even decide to just stop paying Federal taxes. A central government is necessary to keep the country unified, and a move like this would be a misstep."

🤷‍♀️ Other/unsure (17%) – "I see a lot of nuance here. If the federal Constitution says that voting laws should be prescribed by the state legislatures, that would imply the general assembly of elected officials. This doesn't sound like the states' judicial systems should be involved. Rather since this is a federal law, I seems that the federal judicial system should be used to determine if the state legislatures have complied with the constitution."